2002 303(d) List UpdateR p'fp'rp'nN> :I:f..1R

Data Analysis and Recommendations

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey:

RWQC BREGION 1

AUG - 6 2001o lAM_ 0 CRJ ~LEL4t-J 1>o R~T o~.= OKA'1=o FvR_ 8"RSG _ g;scUJ.G

* * *

May 15,1996

* * *

* * *

* * *

in Partial Fullflllment ofCalifornia State CERT #1094

Prepared in Cooperation with

Greenwood Creek Watershed Project(GT-5-95-08-011)

Prepared by Forest, Soil & Water, inc.

Fred Euphrat Ph.D.Kallie Marie Kull

IIIIIIII

---I--'

:',

IIIIIIIJI,:1

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

Executive Summary

A noticeable drop in fish numbers, from sites # 37-42, coincides with a largeincrease in collapsing banks, limited pools and almost no woody debris.

Specific restoration opportunites were found where multiple factors of restrictedhabitat, continuing sedimentation, and/or unstable streambanks coincided.

15 May 96ii

The lower half of the creek showed significantly lower levels of large woody debris(LWD) per sample site, with the exception of large logjams that were located inand in between plots #1 to 4, with from 35-90 pieces per jam. In general, woodydebris amounts increase upstream, with the exception to this trend occurring in theupper reaches ofthe stream between plots #62-71, where LWD drops offconsiderably.

Eighty Greenwood Creek mainstem samples of 30 meters, located along"'16590meters of stream, were evaluated in this study, a sample of 15%. Included in thissample were 85 pools, measured for sedimentation, and 40 sediment transportcorridors (STels), evaluated for size and source.

Channel pattern in the lower reaches, between sample sites #1-16, varied betweenstraight, meandering and braided, becoming predominantly straight from site #17and above, with the exception of a braided section from sites 34 to 37. High levelsofunstable banks were found in the ranges of plots #16-20 and #38-43. Samplesites #12-17 show high percentages ofunvegetated, squared and ramped banksand coincide with reaches of eroding banks.

Many sample sites along the entire length of Greenwood Creek had relatively fewpools. 75% ofthe sites sampled had only one pool or less per 30 meters of streamreach, and 14% of these sites had no pools at all. This lack of pools may be linkedto a lack of woody debris or boulders in many of the sites, or may be a function ofthe flow, the meander wavelength and the streambed materials.

The mean pool filling by sediment was 25%. These values, compared to anothe~

study ofNorth Coast watersheds, are relatively low, suggesting a creek inmoderately good condition. The 85 pools measured, however, represent asignificant baseline resource. Pool filling values were related inversely tocumulative pool size at a statistically significant level, with a stronger relationshipfor the upstream half ofpools sampled. These data did not relate significantly toeither direct sediment input locations or collapsing banks.

Sediment tranport corridors (STC's) were identified and found clustered in threereaches. The largest amounts of STC area were attributed to 1) collapsing banksalong the stream course, 2) roads and 3) seeps and springs.

FSW, inc

IIIIIIII,IIIIIIIIII,

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

, Principal areas for restoration were sample sites #12-13 (2310-2520 m), #34-37(6930-7560 m), #40-44 (8190-9030 m) and #55-59 (11340-12180 m). Otherrestoration opportunites are STC's which connect to the mainstem of the channel,particularly roads, which are of interest to many parties both for their benefits andimpact potential.

Further study in the Greenwood Creek watershed must consider water quality, fishhabitat, watershed conditions, and increasing knowledge ofthe mainstem. Afisheries specialist should be consulted to design and implement population studiesof salmonids. This report also recommends turbidity studies of tributaries, androad sUlveys, to increase knowledge of sedimentation sources and restorationopportunities in the watershed. The Greenwood Creek Watershed Project shouldmaintain and expand its role as a central clearinghouse for existing information,future studies and data analysis.

IIIIIIII'IIIIIII

­,,,, FSW, inc iii 15 May 96

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

References

Appendix A. Protocols

Table of Contents

15 May 96

ii

.VI

.IV

V

1

1

1

2

44

5

5

9

13

16

16

2631

39

33

44

37

iv

L Overview and MethodologyA. Project Goals and Survey ScopeB. Methodology

C. Stream Survey Protocols

Executive SummaryTable of ContentsList of FiguresList of Tables

IL Data AnalysisA. Valley and Steam Channel Morphology

B. Bank Morphology and Bank Stability

C. Large Woody Debris

D. Log Jams

E. Location and Number of Pools

F. Fish Sightings

G. Sediment in Pools: V-wave

H. Sediment Transport Corridors -STC's

I. Tributaries

IlL Recommendationsfor Restorationand Further Study

FSW, inc

Appendix B. Data Tables

IIII

•,•II:1I

•II

•f,,,

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

List of Figures

Figure 1. Sample Sketch Map 5

Figure 2. Bank Morphology 6

Figure 3. Bank Stability - Bank Erosion and Rootwads 7

Figure 4. Bank Stability - Vegetation 8

Figure 5. Total Functional Large Woody Debris 10

Figure 6. Location of Log Jams 11

Figure 7. Location and No. or Pools 14

Figure 8. Where are the Fish? 15

Figure 9. Histogram or V-wave Values 18

Figure 10. Pool Filling by Location 20

Figure 17. Location and Size of STC's.

Figure 12. Histogram of Cumulative Pool Depth

15 May 96

28

24

25

21

23

22

30

29

32

v

Figure 14. Regression or V-wave onCumulative Pool Depth: Sites 43-80.

Figure 16. Sketch Map of Sediment Transport Corridor

Figure 13. Regression or V-wave onCumulative Pool Depth: All Sites

Figure 11. V-wave Mean and Cumulative STC Area,by Thousand Meter Sections

Figure 15. Boxplot or V-wave versusCumulative Pool Depth.

Figure 18. STC's: Area and Cause.

Figure 1~. Sketch Map of Tributary.

FSW, inc

IIIIIfIIIIIIIIJIIII

,IGreenwood Creek Stream Survey

,II List of Tables

IAppendix B:

Table 1• Sample Locations and Descriptions

• Table 2. Channel and Bank Morphology

, Table 3. Woody Debris and Log Jams

Table 4. Fish Sighted - Numbers, Size and Species, Table 5. Pools and Pool Sediment (V-wave)

I Table 6. V-wave Worked Example

Table 7. Sediment Transport Corridors

I Table 8. Summary of Areas of Concern

II,,,,,LI,, FSW, inc vi 15 May 96

,,If

••LI,,I,,I,•,•,,,

L OVERVIEWAND METHODOLOGY

A. Project Goals and Survey Scope

In the spring of 1995, Forest, Soil & Water inc.(FSW) was contracted by theGreenwood Creek Watershed Project to design a mainstem study ofthe creek andtrain local workers to collect and enter data for analysis. The goals of this studywere to:

1) Evaluate the health ofthe mainstem of Greenwood Creek, its ability tosupply clean drinking water to the citizens of the Elk Community, and itsability to provide spawning and rearing habitat for resident and migratorysalmonids;

2) Identify sediment source areas, problem erosion sites or areas with degradedsalmoDid habitat for erosion control projects or fish habitat restorationefforts; and

3) Establish a baseline database for Greenwood Creek to be used in furtherstudies or future monitoring programs.

B. Methodology

Beginning at the Elk County Waters District wells at the 101 bridge, trained fieldcrew from the Greenwood Watershed Project moved upstream, pulling asurveyor's tape and recording sample locations. The survey was designed toencompass 10-15% ofthe mainstem channel, evaluating 30 meter reaches of every210 meters of stream length. Eighty sample sites were located along the creek atregular intervals, progressing upstream a total of 16,590 meters.

Upon arriving at a sample site, as measured upstream from the previous site, fieldcrew first quietly looked for fish. Crew then filled out data sheets, conductedsediment probes in the pools and completed a detailed sketch map of each samplesite. The sample area was measured and flagged at both the top and bottom of theplot, 0 and 30 meters respectively. Aluminum plot tags were placed on twobearing trees, at 10 m and 20 m transects within the 30 m plot. Photos were takenof the plot, looking both upstream and downstream. Figure 1 is a sample sketchmap, made at site #6, and later imported into CorelDraw for standardizedpresentation. The accompanying document, Greenwood Creek Watershed ProjectStream S~rvey (1996), gives sketch maps for all plots.

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

c. Stream Survey Protocols

In between sample sites, crews looked for ·sediment source areas and recorded thequality and nature of tributaries entering the mainstem.

Most training took place in the field and the survey took approximately 6 weeks tocomplete. Protocols employed are described briefly below and in the respectiveanalysis sections, and described in full in Appendix A.

15 May 962

Stream survey methods used have been adapted from the Washington ForestPractice Board's Watershed Assessment Manual (1992), the California DepartmentofFish and Game's Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual (1991), and theNorthwest Indian Fisheries Commission's Timber-Fish-Wildlife Stream AssessmentProtocols (1994), with modification by FSW. V-wave protocols are based onresearch by Hilton and Lisle (1993), Knopp (1993) and the application systemdemonstrated in the WFPB manual (1992).

A field guide for stream survey methodology was written by FSW, to helpstandardize the data collection according to protocols, and was given to field crewduring training and later, to use in collecting data and filling out data sheets. Theseprotocols.are attached as Appendix A.

FSW, inc.

II,,•,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Sample no. 6 meter location 1230 -1260 scribe's name Dave date 7/23/95

1. Location: .Large cobble running creek, upstream from Commons Flat2. Valley Morphology: constricted3. Channel Morphology: riffie-pool-obstruction4. Channel pattem: straight5. Bank Morphology: ramped 75% squared 15% overhanging 15%6. Bank condition: unvegetated 75% vegetated 30% wood or root wads 5% eroding actively contributing sediment 30%

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

Site 6

15 May 96

Figure 1.

3FSW, inc.

Bearing 112* az

Transect A. Active channel location 9.7 ft Alternative channel locationsEdge of plain locations + 23 ft ,6. Total length of transect 29m

Transect B. Active channel location 5.0 ft. Alternative channel locationsEdge of plain location + 22~ -4.3. Total length of transect 26.3

11II

I':.il:.t'-I-,II,,,,tf,,

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

A. Valley and Stream Channel Morpholol!Y

II DATAANALYSIS

The channel pattern at each sample site was described as either straight, braided ormeandering. Channel pattern in the lower re~ches, between sample sites #1-16,varied between straight, meandering and braided, becoming predominantly straightfrom site #17 and above, with the exception of the reach from site 34 to 37.

15 May 964

Stream channel morphology was classified as either riffle, dune-riftle, riffle~pool­

meandering, riftle-pool-obstruction, cascade or step-pool.. Channel morphology inthe lower reaches of Greenwood Creek; varied between ri·ffle, riffle-pool-meanderand riffle-pool-obstruction. Further upstream, above site #30, the channel waspredominantly riffle-pool-obstruction in nature with a few sample sites noted asstep-pools. Obstructions are either boulders or woody debris found in the channel,which alter channel morphology.

The morphology ofthe stream and the valley it runs through contribute to streamdynamics and influence other factors, such as sediment deposition in the channeland erosion from banks. Data ofvalley morphology, stream channel morphologyand channel pattern, have been collected in numeric, descriptive and sketch mapform for every site and are summarized in Appendix B, Tables 1 and 2. These dataselVe as a baseline for future revisits to these sites.

The valley morphology at each stream sample was classified as either a broadfloodplain, swale or constricted. In sample sites #1-5, measured from the ElkCounty Waters District wells at the 101 bridge upstream approximately 1000meters, Greenwood Creek runs through a broad floodplain. Upstream fromsample #5, the valley morphology narrows and the creek flows through aconstricted channel for the remainder of the study reach. The only exception is site#34, next to Matt Evans' land, where the valley opens up and a braided channelflows through a wider floodplain.

In terms of restoration activity, instream work may be most effective in straight ormeandering sections, riffle-pool-obstruction dominated reaches, and in constrictedchannels. As the valley widens, the effectiveness of in-channel structures maydecline, because the stream may abandon its course and, with it, the structures.Readers should also note that braided channels, as at site #34, are often locationsof significant aggradation and channel instability, so may be valid targets forchannel restoration.

FSW, inc.

IIIIIIIIIIIIII

••II,,

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

B. Bank Morphology and Bank Stability

c. Large Woody Debris

The amount of large organic or woody debris (LWD) in a stream channel reflectsboth terrain and management. A thick overhead canopy provides fallen woodydebris to the stream, and logging in the upper watershed can temporarily bringwood and slash down into the creek. A riparian zone that has been heavily cleared

for timber or grazing purposes will have less long term recruitment of woodydebris, may create less in-stream pools, and may provide less shelter for fish.

15 May 965

Banks were also evaluated as to whether they were 1) vegetated, 2) unvegetated,3) composed ofwood or root wads and 4) actively eroding or collapsing. Figure 3shows a running average of the distribution of bank conditions for sampled sites onGreenwood Creek. Note the higher percentages of actively eroding or collapsingbanks in the upper reaches of the watershed above site #40, relative to stabilizingelements. Also note the marked peaks ofcollapsing banks in the vicinity of plots#16-20 and #38-43. These sites stand out as good stretches of the creek to revisitand assess for restoration and bank stabilization projects. Figure 4 shows thevegetated and unvegetated state of Greenwood Creek banks. Sample sites #12-17show high percentages of unvegetated, squared and ramped banks and coincidewith reaches of eroding banks. These sites should be revisited to evaluatepotential for restoration and bank stabilization.

In evaluating streams for habitat potential it is important to note the role functionalorganic debris plays in forming pools and providing shade and shelter for juvenilefish (Murphy and Meehan, 1991). LWD plays a major role in channel morphology,often altering the shape or location of a channel, and serves as a buffer which canhold back a sediment load or retain spawning gravel (Harmon, M. E. et al., 1986).The Regional Ecosystem Assessment Project ofRegion 6 of the U.S. ForestService included pool frequency as a primary indicator of aquatic ecosystemquality. LWD adds complexity to the channel and increases the frequency anddiversity of pool types. A primary reason for the loss of pools in forest streams isthe loss ofpool forming structures such as boulders and large wood (FEMAT,1993).

Bank morphology was evaluated for each 30 meter sample reach, along both sidesof the creek. Crews estimated the percent ofbank that was ramped, squared oroverhanging, with a sum total equal to 100%. Figure 2 shows Greenwood Creekbank morphology. Starting from the lower reaches of the creek in the broadfloodplain, the banks tend to be highly ramped and/or squared. Moving upstream,from site banks get more overhanging and the distribution ofbank conditions ismore equally spread between the three types of morphologies (from site 50 andabove).

FSW, inc.

I

•I••,,-I.1-,,•,,,,,,,

Greenwood Creek - Bank Morphology

100 ~-----r-----r----.,.-----r----"-------r----.------,

9O+----+----+----f----t----t----t----t-----j

-o-ramped,-.<-,:<.,•.:«<.,:< squared

• overhanging

five plot running averages

8070eo30 40 50Plot No. I Location

2010

80 +---+~--+---+------+---+----+---+---_+_--_i,70 .J--~----+-----+--__A_--I--..__..._+-----+----+-------+----t----i

N\C\

60

J 50

40

30

20

\:;

~ 10

~

00

Figure 2.

...... ------_ ......... _--_._--~ Bank Stability - Bank Erosion and Root Wads

a actively erodingor collapsing

• wood or rootwads

five plot running average

80706030 40 50

Plot No. I Location

2010

~~ Ji~ ~

II-II~

~n~A~l ~ ~

j~.l4 '\ '''~-~jrJ~ \'

/J ~l~\

~ ~ U

~\ri' ,~ ~w~,

j ~

1 r ~ V IU..,*.AA~

\ ~.- 1..........

oo

5

10

35

30

40

25~ ..c

Q)u 20~

Q)Q.

15

Figure 3.

Greenwood Creek - Bank Stability

100 .------r----.------.----r-----,------r-----,----....,

:::::::::::::.':::::::::::: unvegetated

-<>-vegetated

6070605040302010

-

90 -t-4ir-o--~-~-~-._-+----+----t__-----I----+----+----~~ '\~ iI A

Co ~ccuu 50....CUC.

40

30

20

~ 10""~I()

00\

0

Plot No. I Location

Figure 4.

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

D. Log Jams

In this study, each log and rootwad found in or adjacent to the stream channel wasclassified according to size as well as functionality. Small organic debris measured20-50 cm in diameter with large being greater than 50 em in diameter. Ajunctional piece was defined as being embedded into the banks or streambed oraffecting the flow ofwater around it. Non-!unctional was defined as lying within 2meters above the wetted channel and poised or ready to fall into the streameventually (Shuett-Hames et al., 1994).

For the purpose of this study, Figure 5 shows the total number ofjunctionalwoody debris elements found within sample sites on Greenwood Creek. Amount

ofwoody debris per sample site ranged from zero to seventeen pieces per sampleplot. 66% of sampled sites had 2 or less pieces of functional LWD, and 36% of thesites had none. Only 20% of the sampled sites showed a count of five or morefunctional woody debris elements. This may be due to high flows moving theLWD through the system, but, as discussed below, appears to suggest a clumpydistribution in log jams.

15 May 969FSW, inc.

The lower half of the creek showed significantly lower levels ofLWD per samplesite, with the exception of large log jams that were located in and in between plots#1 to 4. In general, woody debris amounts increase upstream, with the exceptionto this trend occurring in the upper reaches of the stream between plots #62-71,where LWD drops off considerably. Lower reaches between sites #5-21 and thenoted upper watershed sites #62-71 would be good stream reaches to look at forpossible recruitment ofLWD into the channel. This can be accomplished bywidening the riparian buffer zone, falling logs into the channel, and the promotionoflarge, recruitment conifers and hardwoods in the riparian corridor. Recruitmenttrees would be marked for eventual falling (natural or assisted) into the stream.

In accordance with protocols established by the Timber-Fish-Wildlife AmbientMonitoring Program Manual (Shuett-Hames et aI., 1994), a woody debris jam wasdefined as an accumulation often or more pieces of wood, either logs or rootwads,greater than 20 cm in diameter and touching other logs in the jam. Figure 6 showsthe magnitude and locations ofwoody debris jams, all along Greenwood Creek.Some of these sample reaches show log jams with high numbers ofwoody debriselements. The region of sites #2-4 had log jams ranging from 35-90 pieces perjam. It is interesting to note that woody debris has washed down into log jams inthe lower five sites, where the creek flows at a low stream gradient into a broadfloodplain.

,•,,,,LI,IIII,,,,,,,

-- --'_._-_ ... _-------

Total Functional LOD

18...,...,--------------,-----------------------,

16 I

14+-------------------------- ----~I

I12+!----------1-------.....:...-----------11-----

10+----------II------.r:------------a-----­Pieces of LCD

8+--------- ----...-----..-------.-----

6-+---------- ._----

4-+--_e__-------il-._-- -

2+-ti._-II-----__.-tI--il-._

o +-,JI~~ " ,

~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ mSample No.1 Location

Figure 5.

....................', ...Location'of Log Jams

120----------------,..,...7'"",......~---------------__.

'".- '

20

..........

.s::.CJcaQ)

£t::Q)

Q.Eca

U)

USQ)CJ.9!fl.'to­ociz

100.-.-----------------il1t---------------~

80..J--II-U---------------.,-fI--------------~

8O..J--III--U----------------11It---------------~

40

I;V-: :.

. ,.' "(0 ~ ~' .

.<l~!r ,~\,:' "o .. ~~CO""l""l""(J)~~N'!""AV)""I""l""ClOI""I'"'I"'''I"'~'I'"''I''''r'.''''I''''l'''',...'I'"''I''''r'.,.oT'''!'''''!CO).,..,..co,...·~, ""!"miF:"r"itNIlrTV),.,.,..,..ClOT"'T"T~"lTI...I"'I'"!"T"r.::I""I'"'l~ CO)co

_ _ ~ N N N CO) CO) CO) ~:~ ... ... V) V) _. _

Sample NQ~IL,oca.tlon:."1·!., .

Figure 6.: ,~

; .

!.!! .,",: ',:.

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey 1995

Site 3

}5May9612FSW, Inc.

Sample no. 3 meter location 600 - 630 scribe's nameDave date 7/21195

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

1. Location:2. Valley Morphology:3. Channel Morphology:4. Channel pattern:5. Bank Morphology:6. Bank condition:

Bearing 106* az

Transect A. Active channel location 41 ft Aletrnative channel locations 60 ft 271 ft, ·58ftEdge of plain locations +280 ft, -80 ft. Total length of transect 360 ft

Transect B. Active channel location 10 ft. Alternative ch~ellocations 41 ft, 247 ft, -66 ftEdge ofplain location +260 ft, ·74 ft. Total length of transect 334 ft

IIIIJ,IIII,-I,,,,,,,

Greenwood Creek Stream SUf>ley

E. Location and Number of Pools

Pools for this study were defined by the following criteria:

1) water slower than the mean velocity,2) countervailing currents,3) flat surface at low flow, and4) maximum depth deeper than mean thalweg (continuous line ofdeepest

depth).

15 May 9613

Pools provide fish habitat and in times of low stream flow can provide pockets ofwater which allow the survival ofaquatic organisms (Gordon et al., 1992). Theyalso trap or hold sediment as it moves through the stream channel. Pools, beingthe result of local scour induced by structural elements in the channel, reflect thegeomorphology ofthe streambed and the quantity oflarge woody debris movinginto the channel from upstream sources or overhead canopy. Since woody debrisincreases the frequency and diversity ofpool types, a primary reason for the loss ofpools is the loss ofpool forming structures such as boulders and large wood(Hamilton and Bergersen, 1984; FEMAT, 1993). Since the presence or absenceofpools directly affects the habitat quality ofa stream, it is important to identifystreams which have a healthy number ofpools per stream segment and those whichdo not.

Log jams can affect instream habitat by restring fish passage or diverting erosiveflows ofwater into banks. Jams also absorb much ofthe woody debris in a stream,so it is not available for fonning habitat elsewhere. Restoration actions can includeevaluation ofjams for fish passage, flooding and erosion potential. FollowingFigure 6, please find a sketch of site 3, which includes a significant logjam.

Many sample sites along the entire length of Greenwood Creek had relatively fewpools. 75% ofthe sites sampled had only one pool or less per 30 meters of streamreach, and 14% of these sites had no pools at all (Figure 7). This lack ofpoolsmay be linked to a lack of woody debris or boulders in many of the sites (Hamiltonand Bergersen, 1984; FEMAT, 1993), or may be a function ofthe flow, themeander wavelength and the streambed materials (Leopold et al. 1964)--alldirections for further research. After assessing what the 'right' number ofpoolsare, and if they are restricted by woody debris recruitment, habitat restoration

Data collected on pools include the number, location and dimensions of each pool.At each sample site, two pools, if they occurred, were measured, sketched andprobed with a rod to measure the depth of fine sediment trapped at the bottom ofeach pool. This data is later converted into a V-wave calculation which measuresthe percent of the pool filled with fine sediment.

FSW, inc.

I·1IIIIII:1'I'II.11II,I,"

Location and No. of Pools

4

3.5

3

II)

"0 2.50Q.~ 20.0 1.5Z

1

0.5

... • ,.... 0 CO) co at... .... ... ....

Figure 7.

Sample No./Location

Where Are the Fish 11

90

80

"C70

G)

~ 60G)II).a

500s::.CI) 40.-

LL....0 30.0Z 20

10

0 .,• co N co 0 ........ .... N N

Figure 8.

, ..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~

Sample No./Locatlon

, ,0 .... CON co 0co co co ,... ,... CO

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

Sediment in Pools: V-wave

F. Fish Sightings

The first sites which should be evaluated are in the plot #34-45 area, which shouldbe investigated both for causes of few pools and potential for pool creation.

15 May 9616

Recommendations for future assessment of fish within Greenwood Creek are toget better population information using snorkel surveys, electrofishing or migranttrapping. This more intense measurement will better assess the number, speciesand habitats ofGreenwood Creek's fish population. A fisheries specialist should beconsulted on the direction and detail of survey goals and techniques.

Field crew first approached each sample site quietly, in order to observe thenumbers and size ranges of fish present along the sample reach. These wererecorded before any other evaluations were made. A table showing the numbers,size ranges and species of fish observed is found in Appendix B. Figure 8 showsthe approximate number offish observed during this study in sample plots withinGreenwood Creek. Steelhead were the predominant species observed andestimates of their size ranged from1.5 to 7 inches.

projects on Greenwood Creek may do well to focus on recruitment andstabilization ofwoody debris into the stream channel to create more poolformation to increase habitat potential for fish.

Sediment moves into Greenwood Creek from adjacent banks and sideslopes ofthestream and from the upper watershed via tributaries and sediment transportcorridors (STC's). To assess relative sediment deposition levels within the stream,crews conducted a survey of pool filling by fine sediment. Sedimentation wasmeasured with an FSW protocol, termed V-wave. This methodology can monitorincreases or decreases in sediment levels in the stream over time and track themovement of sediment pulses moving downstream.

V-wave is a measurement of the relative amount a pool has become filled with finesediment (please see protocol in Appendix A). These data are collected in thestream diannel, probing the fine sediment in the pool to find the true bottom, feltas a layer which has greater resistance than the fine sediments. Only sediments and

FSW, inc.

A noticeable drop in fish numbers, from sites # 37-42, coincides with a largeincrease in collapsing banks, limited pools and almost no woody debris along that.reach ofthe stream. This trend is best seen in Appendix B, Table 8.

II••,,,I,IJ

­,,,,,,.,,

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

pool depths which are below the riffle crest, the lip elevation of the pool outlet, arecounted. Points ofthe pool which have sediment above the riffle crest, but abottom below it, are counted as full of sediment up to the riffle crest, only.

A histogram ofthe V-wave values is shown in Figure 9. Crews measured 85pools. The mean pool filling (Vw in Hilton and Lisle) was 0.25, with a standarderror of0.01. The mode ofthe data, when grouped by five percent intervals, isalso 0.25, or 25%.

The term 'V-wave' refers to V*, a determination ofvolume presented by Hiltonand Lisle (1993), and a contraction of 'weighted average'. Two pools per site, ifpresent, were probed for pool and sediment depth in up to 48 evenly spacedpoints, and the weighted average of the sedimentation for those points is presentedas Y-wave. The weighting is by pool and sediment depth--deeper points countmore than shallow points. A summary of V-wave measurements are presented inAppendix B, Table 5. A worked example, with accompanying pool cross-sectionsis shown in Appendix B, Table 6.

15 May 9617

The amount ofpool filling is important for fish habitat, because sedimentaccumulates in the bottom ofpools, reducing potential cover, and eliminates thedeepest, coldest habitat. As sediment builds towards the surface of pools, it is ableto absorb solar energy, re-reradiating heat into the stream. In addition, sedimentcovers habitat elements on the bottom ofthe stream and reduces the amount ofcountervailing current potential as the pool becomes smaller. The size andcomplexity ofpools relates, therefore, directly to salmonid production (Bjornn andReiser, 1991). DFG habitat surveys look specifically at subsurface habitatelements and bubble curtains (Flosi and Reynolds, 1991) both of which are limitedby sedimentation in pool bottoms.

Hilton and Lisle's 1993 paper considers V* values of 10% and above to bemoderate to high values, and notes the site specificity of these evaluations, puttingforth y* as a useful monitoring tool. Coastal region comparative information isavailable in Knopp's 1993 report "Testing Indices of Cold Water Fish Habitat,"which focused on the Franciscan Formation ofthe North Coast, and includedGreenwood Creek as a sample site. It is important to note that Hilton and Lisle donot limit the use of v* to specific pool forming criteria or definitions; Knopp'sstudy defined pools to have a maximum depth at least four times the riffle crestdepth. Knopp found mean V* values for reaches in relatively undisturbed (index)watersheds to be 28% with historic management, and 17% with no history ofmanagement. Moderately disturbed watersheds had mean reach V* values of37%; highly disturbed watersheds had mean reach y* values of42% (Knopp,1993). By these measures, the reach y* ofGreenwood Creek is relatively low,suggesting a creek in moderately good condition. It is not clear, however, ifvalues from Knopp, Hilton and Lisle, or this study may be robustly compared-­each approach is designed for internal consistency.

FSW, inc.

11IIIIIIIIIIIIII

••IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

••_-_._- •••••• ---~~

Histogram ofV-wave Values, Greenwood Creek20or----=---------=-----.;...:.-._~ _...

.....Co

10+----

Std. Dev =.12Mean"" .25

~--.-......,..~L--..r_-..-=:it:,t!i:'=&} N = 85.00.10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40 AS .50 .S5 .60 .65 .70 .75

Figure 9.

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

Factors of V-Wave PredictionPool filling is a function of sediment input, stream morphology, slope and flow.Measurement of pool filling becomes dependent on selection criteria for pools,both by location and physical characteristics.

Cumulative pool depth, as shown in Figures 13 and 14, correlates exponentiallywith V-wave, with correlation coefficients (adjusted R2) of 0.198 for the wholedata set, and 0.341 for sites 43 to 80. The significance of both of these values is>99.99%. In other words, it is statistically very certain that the cumulative depthof pools partially accounts for variation in V-wave measurements. Therelationship is

The measurements taken for the calculation ofV-wave include total pool depth,which is accumulated for all points in the pool. Most pools had 48 points taken,

spaced equidistantly on regular transects. Only very small pools had less than 48points attempted, and only points with the pool bottom above the riftle crest werethrown out. Total pool depth, therefore, reflects the deepness of multiple points inpools, and is shown for all pools in the histogram in Figure 12. The histogramindicates a mode ofcumulative pool depth in the 100-300 cm range and a mean of900 em.

15 May 9619

Results and AnalysisThere are a few notable elements about the V-wave survey of Greenwood Creek(Figure 10). First, it shows a wide variation in pool filling, from 5.8% to 74.9%.Second, it shows wide and rapid variability of pool filling along the distance of thestream where pools were evaluated, with regular 10% and 20% differences frompool to pool among the sample set, as well as larger trends within 'the data set.Pools appear to go from low sedimentation levels at the 101 bridge to high levelsat 5000 meters, then decline to about 15000 meters, and rise again to the upstreamextent of the survey area. Third, there are places where STC's or bank collapseapparently relate directly to pool filling, though other sites of pool filling can notbe traced to visible sources. Fourth, it appears that the relative size and location ofthe pool may strongly affect its relative sedimentation. And fifth, some pools havehigh sedimentation relative to the rest of the study pools and their sizes, so aregood candidates for further study.

While, intuitively, it seems that location of the STC's would correlate directly withpool filling, comparison of the data show several instances where this works, andseveral where it does not. Figure 11 shows both mean V-wave values andcumulative STC volume by location. The data show that an infusion of sedimentcan elevate or maintain V-wave levels above 20%, in many cases. The data are notclear, however, because some V-wave averages are high without strong STCinfluence, and because some large STCls appear to have little affect on the V-wavemeasure. Similarly, unvegetated banks occasionally track with V-wave values,but not strongly enough for statistical strength.

FSW, inc.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIII,,,"

~

I--

j M I~-t

I 1\. /\ , -, Ii- 1\

f\.,~ .\~~V ~ 'J \~ l \r v~

I• ~ ~\ • •~ ~ ~ J .-

~~~ :; V\4

I?.

4

80.0%

70.0%

---cQ)

E 60.0%~

Q)V"l

""Q)

50.0%ca t=.>..-

..0 ~"'C 0 40.0%Q) ~

~~'--"

aa 30.0%0--a---c 20.0%Q)

~Q)

0-

10.0%

..."" 0.0%

~~

o 2000 4000 6000

Pool Filling by LocationGreenwood Creek

800C) 10000

Meter Location

12000 14000 16000 18000

Figure 10.

V-wave Mean and Cumulative STC Area,by Thousand Meter Section

14000

12000

l!! 10000~<I)

...... :=;;.... e0;:;,

Jr 80000<I)

.<~ 6000

<I)

~0

"'5E 4000;:;,u

2000

...."'"~ 0

~ o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Thousand Meter Section

12 13 14 15 16

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3<I)::::l

~0.25 <I)

>0•I

0.2 >~c:

0<I)

:::E ":a0.15 ~

0~

(')

0.1 ~

"l0\-CI;~

0.05 ~

~~

0 ~~

Figure 11.

_•••• _.~~•• ~~~~~---

20 ,.-.-..;;.;H;.;;.;is~to.;;;.w.;.r.;;.;.a;;.;.;m;....;o;...;;f-.;C;;;.;;u;;,;;;m;;.;u;;.;;l,;;;.at;.;;.iv,;.;;e;...;;P;..;o;.;:;o;.;;..1,;;;,D,=.ieI::.;t:.:,:h:.!.,'G.;:re:.=en::.w~o;:;,;o::.:d:....;C=ree~k::..- __--,

10.....--i

Cumulative Total Pool Depth «=48 pts. em)

Std. Dev Cl 673.26Mean = 900.6

""""i""'~~T='N= 85.000.0 400.0 800.0 1200.0 1600.0 2000.0 2400.0 2800.0

200.0 600.0 1000.0 1400.0 1800.0 2200.0 2600.0 3000.0

Figure 12.

• Actual•Predicted

• J:ypn1.... '0 308291l+Cu *-0.000345\ .

-e • • • •-... ..

• ••e· e • •- •• • , ..• . • • • I e •• • .. -.e •e. •• •••- e • • ...

e • •• • •.' • • •• ... •_. - - •• • I

0.8

0.7

0.6

%0.5~ ~t=~ ..2(5

g. 0

~ .::- 0.4o 0~ Q)I Q)

> '-C1".g 0.3

.........

0.2

0.1

0....v.

~'001

o 500

Regression of V-wave on Cumulative Pool DepthGreenwood Creek; All Sites

adj. r-squared=O.19804, F=21.743, Sig. F=.OOOO

1000 1500 2000

Cumulative Pool Depth (em)

2500 3000

Figure 13.

• Actual•Predicted

EXP(I N(0.328048)+CumD ~pth·-0.000468)

-

- •• .- • •- •1-.

~•• •- • 4

• • •.- • •• • •• ••.4 • I •

• • • •

0.8

0.7

0.6

--..~ 0.5

.,.,. ~="- ; g

:>Q.~ _ 0.4o 0~ IVI C.>

:> 0,~ 0.3

0.2

0.1

0....v,

f~

o 500

Regression of V-wave on Cumulative Pool DepthGreenwood Creek: Sites ~3-80

adj. r-squared=O.34061, F=25.794, Sig. F=.OOOO

1000 1500 2000

Cumulative Pool Depth (em)

2500 3000

Figure 14.

... _- -----_ .... _-------~.

077.00

Boxplot ofV-wave versus Cumula~ive Pool Depth.8 ---:....-----r-----..,.--~l-'---r----=----r-------r-----____,, '.

:j r'I ;j.'

J- --.j~-~*~23~.()~O-+-----I---_--UlutJjiea~ili~led.b,}!.f.klUlO_.l.6

057.00

~o.oo

.4oI----~--+--____J--+--__r--I-------+-----+--------t

3

3000.00s

2500.00"'2000.0016

1500.00

,;,:,;,~:::;.:;;;:::;:,";:::',:;,;::,:,';;,~:: ::.~.,:..:t.,:~:~,!,:,~::.:...!:::••'.,'~:·",I..,I.:·.,:;.:::..,'.i:·.:.:· .•.,l.~.:,;;~.;,,:.:..:...,~:;,;;.:::..:i.M.:.;:.::.:.,,'::;..::.:~.',.,~.~.~.,:.:~:::':..,;.,;....:~,:,:::;..,;.,:.~..:::'::...~.::.~,.:~:~.:j,~'....•..

:1~~j.~t~ij;!~f~~;~~~[~i~~~~~j~j;I~~j~ oh ~~ ~- ••• •

27

1000.0030

500.00

Cumulative Depth of Largest Pool in Class (=<48 pts, em)

.2

w~~I> 0.0

N-

Figure 15.

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

H. Sediment Transport Corridors - STC's

inverse, and as pools have greater cumulative depth, they are less likely to containresidual sediment.

The most interesting revelation from these data is the concept that pool filling canbe controlled through pool depth. Anecdotally, deep pools, particularly deep,narrow pools, act as sluiceways, and keep themselves clean. Deep plungesfollowing logs may also have a strong self-cleaning effect. The bottom line may beone for restoration: if one is building pools, build them deep.

15 May 9626

Sediment Transport Corridors (SIC's) are, places where sediment enters thestream zone. They may be related to human activities or of natural causes. Roads,logging activities, utility right ofways, construction, and trails made by people,game, and cattle typically create STC's. Sometimes steep slopes or a high streamflow will cause banks to erode and an STC in the form of a landslide occurs.Tributaries are considered a separate category from STC's, although they dotransport sediment. Figure 16 is a sample sketch of an STC created by a road

Continuing QuestionsThe overview of the data suggests that sedimentation follows larger trends in thewhole watershed and individual variation from pool to pool. Comparison withupslope sedimentation evaluations, and analysis of these data with respect to slopeand stream characteristics may explain some of the broad-scale trends, as shown inFigure 10.

The relationship of cumulative depth to V-wave allows identification of poolswhich have uncharacteristically high amounts of sediment, so that researchers maygo to the site and consider the reasons they are in that condition. As shown in theboxplot in Figure 15, pools can be sorted by cumulative depth category, andoutliers and extremes for that category detennined. An outlier is a pool which,when graphed, is beyond the 75th percentile by more than 1.5 times the range fromthe 25th percentile to the 75th percentile, and an extreme plots at more than 3.0times that distance. Sites which meet these criteria are in plots 57 and 77,outliers, and 32 and 40, extremes.

FSW, inc.

The role of cumulative depth respective to pool filling begs the question, "what arethe other factors that fill pools?" We know, in this data set, that-it is not STC areaorunvegetated banks per 1000 m, though it may.be either of these factors

. evaluated in a more site-specific context.. It may also·be tributary.,.derivedsediment, slope of stream, thalweg placement, location on'bar"'1II1itinearnessto .curves), distance to debris jams or knickpoints. This is a useful direction forfurther analysis ofexisting data and collection of data in the future.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

- Samples 8-13, at 1500-2700 m,- Samples 55-57, at 11,100-11,800 m, and- Samples 74-76, at 15,300-15,800 m.

failure into Greenwood Creek. The accompanying document, Greenwood Creek

Watershed Project Stream Survey (1996), gives sketch maps for all STels. Asummary of STC dimensions and causes is presented in this report in Appendix B,Table 7.

Documenting the location and dimensions of STC's for a watercourse serves as auseful tool in evaluating sediment sources and planning for restoration work orroad improvements. Field personnel recorded all STC's they encountered for theentire length of the sampled stream segments. These records include:

15 May 9627

• location,• effect on the stream (negligible, sediment deposition, or significant

aggradation),

* written description,• possible causes and sources,• dimensions, and• a sketch.

Location and Size ofSTC'sSTC surface area was calculated from dimensions recorded in the field. In orderto determine which STC's transport or produce the greatest relative amount ofsediment, STC surface area was used as an indicator of magnitude. The surfacearea shows the degree to which bare soil is exposed to agents of transport.Surface area is also a function of persistence and ability ofan STC to carrysediment over ground buffers to the stream channel.

Figure 17 shows the location and dimensions of STC's, as calculated in squaremeters, per sample plot. Figure 11, in the V-wave section, shows the cumulativeSTC area for each 1000 meter stretch of Greenwood Creek. The two diagramsshow high values for sediment entry into the following regions on GreenwoodCreek:

STC Causes and RecommendationsField crew were instructed to investigate STC's and follow them from the creek up

to source areas. Most probable causes were noted, and are shown in Figure 18,which looks at a sum of STC area relative to cause. The largest amounts of STCarea were attributed to 1) collapsing banks along the stream course, 2) roads and3) seeps or springs. This breakdown is extremely important to consider whenplanning for water quality or fish habitat restoration. The reason for such high

FSW, inc.

IIIIIIIIIIIII

••••(I

II

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

sample no. above 9 meter location 1890 to 1910 scribe's name Jesse date 7/25/95

Sediment Transport Corridor

Site 9+

15 May 9628

Figure 16.

FSW, inc.

Location of Stream entry Below the "Pigeon Hole"Facing upstream, the STC drains in from the: LeftWidth 15 m. Length 20 m. Depth?Describe the source and! cause:Failed road. Not proper draining.

-I-I-I-I--I

-IIIIIIIIII

­•,,II

Location and Size of STCs

II) co,.... ,....

Location/Sample No.

9000-/

- 8000f.sG) 7000E.r::T 6000fn-fn

50000...tIJ.... 40000fnC 3000.2tnC 2000G)

E.- 10000

a .... ..,. r- C') co Q)~.... ..... ....

,

Figure 17.

· ••• ~ •• -~ •• _------~~.

12000

STC's: Area v. Cause

SquareMeters

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000 -

acollapsing

bankdirectly

roadrelated

seep orspring

loggingrelated

. Cause

culverterosion ofhlllsiope

unknown tributarybanks

Figure 18.

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

Ie Tributaries

The tributaries are an "essential part of the watershed. This study"has, to this pint,conducted a mainstem evaluation. Whole watershed analysis must address thetributaries and hillslopes, which contribute to the cumulative qualities of themainstem.

percentages of collapsing banks, in particular, needs to be investigated. Roadrelated STC's may be the source to reduce, because of the common interest intheir repair--both road users and water users will benefit from reduced roaderosion. Site specific, in-field, practical remedies need to be considered for everySTC.

15 May 9631

Data were gathered on all significant tributaries encountered by field crews. LikeSTC's, one goal of the data was to evaluate if any significant change occurred at

the confluence with the mainstem. These data revealed little, apart from noting afew deltaic deposits. Sketch maps, as shown in Figure 19, were developed foreach tributary as well.

Further information on tributaries and their contribution to the total sediment loadof Greenwood Creek remains an important consideration to the total sedimentbudget, however. That information will need to be gathered either by specificanalysis of the particle size, pool filling and STC's of the tributary system, analysiswith airphotos, road surveys, and/or simultaneous turbidity analysis throughout thestream system during peak flows. Tributary watershed information may then beused along with the existing and future data-on the mainstem of the stream.

FSW. inc.

I:1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

--

Greenwood Creek Stream Survev

sample no. 6+ meter location 1320 to 1330 scribe's name Dave date 7/23/95

Facmg upstream, the STC drains in from the: Right.

Site 6+

15 May 9632FSW, inc.

Figure 19.

Tributary

Location of Stream entry 1330 m.

Condition change apparent at confluence? Describe changes insedimentation, water color, etc.

Channel goes up steep bank through second growth fir andredwood. The channel feeds in behind a large cobble bar and goesunderground. Water feeds into stream about 10m. down stream.

~I

~I

•-I-,:1J:1-II-,I

III

­IJ•IIII,

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

A noticeable drop in fish numbers, from sites # 37-42, coincides with a largeincrease in collapsing banks, limited pools and almost no woody debris.

III. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESTORATIONAND FURTHER STUDY

High levels of unstable banks were found in the ranges of sites #16-20 and #38-43.Sample sites #12-17 show high percentages ofunvegetated, squared and rampedbanks and coincide with reaches of eroding banks.

- .. :'-.'

15 May 9633

The lower halfof the creek showed significantly lower levels of large woody debris(LWD) per sample site, with the exception oflarge logjams that were located inand in between plots #1 to 4, with from 35-90 pieces per jam. In general, woodydebris amounts increase upstte~with the exception to this trend occurring in theupper reaches of the stream between plots #62-71, where LWD drops offconsiderably.

Data SummaryEighty Greenwood Creek mainstem samples of30 meters, located along 16590meters of stream, were evaluated in this study, a sample of 15%. Included in thissample were 85 pools, measured for sedimentation, and 40 sediment transportcorridors (STCls), evaluated for size and source.

Channel pattern in the lower reaches, between sample sites #1-16, varied betweenstraight, meandering and braided, becoming predominantly straight from site #17

and above. The exception is a braided section from sites 34 to 37.

Pool filling data (V-wave) related inversely to cumulative pool size at asignificance >99.99%, with a stronger relationship for the upstream half of poolssampled. These data did not relate significantly to either STC location orcollapsing banks. The relationship ofcumulative depth to V-wave allowsidentification of pools which have uncharacteristically high amounts of sediment.

Many sample site~albhg the entire length of Greenwood:Creek had relatively fewpools. 75% of the sites sampled had only one pool or less per 30 meters of streamreach, and 14% of these sites had no pools at all. This lack of pools may be linkedto a lack of woody debris or boulders in many of the sites, or may be a function ofthe flow, the meander wavelength and the streambed materials.

The mean pool filling (Vw in Hilton and Lisle) was 0.25, with a standard error of

0.01. Relative to Chris Knopp's 1993 study ofNorth Coast watersheds, the poolfilling values of Greenwood Creek are relatively low, suggesting a creek inmoderately good condition. It is not clear, however, ifvalues from Knopp, Hiltonand Lisle, or this study may be reasonably compared. The 8S pools measured,however, represent a significant baseline resource.

FSW, inc.

IIIIIIII,IIIIIIIII,•II

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

• Bare and unstable banks in the regions of samples #12-17 and #38-43 standout as good stretches of the creek to revisit and assess for restoration and

The largest amounts of STC area were attributed to 1) collapsing banks along thestream course, 2) roads and 3) seeps and springs.

Those pools are in plots 57 and 77, which are outliers, and'32 and 40, which areextremes. The relationship of depth to sediment also suggests that when buildingpools, restorationists should emphasize depth.

15 May 9634

* Sample #12-13 (2310-2520 m): High erosion from STC's, highsedimentation in pools, low LWD, scarce fish, nearby unstablebanks and braided channel;

* Sample #55-59 (11340-12180 m): Very high pool sedimentationthroughout this area and many STels. This is probably an areawhere STC's are contributing directly to stream sedimentation.

*Sample #40-44 (8190-9030 m): Unstable and bare banks, few pools,low LWD, scarce fish, high pool sedimentation,an extremesedimentation site, and a large log jam;

* Sample #34-37 (6930-7560 m): Braided channel, few pools, lowLWD, bare banks, scarce fish, and upstream from an extreme poolsedimentation site;

• Comparison of the various factors ofstream and bank condition is.shown inAppendix B, Table 8. The data 'line up' to show key sites ofconcern. Ifrestoration were to be commenced in the near future; these':data suggestthe following sites as zones of multiple concerns:

STC's with significant contributing area were concentrated in several streamreaches:

- Samples 8-13, at 1500-2700 m,- Samples 55-57, at 11,100-11,800 m, and- Samples 74-76, at 15,300-15,800 m.

Restoration OpportunitiesThere are several approaches to restoration. First, the GCWP should consider itsgoal or goals--water quality, fish habitat, stream stability or road utility--and how itwishes to spend scarce restoration funds. With this underlying decision, theGCWP has a variety of approaches to choose from, which are outlined below. Allrestoration projects will require further field reconnaissance and planning. Inaddition, no restoration project should be considered an end, but rather amanagement action within a strategy of inventory, management and monitoring.

FSW, inc.

I(I

I

­IJ

"-­II

•I

-­•••IIIIIIII

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

bank stabilization projects. Sites #12-1 7 should be revisited to evaluatepotential for restoration and bank stabilization.

The V-wave data tell a piece of a larger story, which probably includes tributary­derived sediment, slope of stream, thalweg placement, nearness to curves, distance

Water quality data would benefit from simultaneous turbidity sampling of creeks·during storms. Combined with a rating curve to determine the actual amount ofsuspended sediment transport, these data would be useful in determining sedimentsources in the watershed.

15 May 9635FSW, inc.

Assessment of fish within Greenwood Creek will be useful to understand thepotential for habitat restoration. Better population information may employsnorkel surveys, electrofishing or migrant trapping. This more intensemeasurement will better assess the number, species and habitats of GreenwoodCreek's fish population. Specific direction and tools for fisheries research shouldbe determined and detailed by a fisheries specialist.

• Lower reaches between samples #5-21, and the upper watershed samples#62-71, would be good stream reaches to look at for possible recruitmentofLWD into the channel. Restoration actions for logjams in the areas ofsamples #1 to 4 should include evaluation ofjams for fish passage, floodingand erosion potential.

• Road related STC's may be the most economical and politically expedientsource to restore, because both road users and water users will benefitfrom reduced road erosion. Site specific remedies need to be considered

.for every SIC. In addition cost-sharing or in-kind donations may beavailable from road owners, co-owners or associations.

Road surveys in the watershed would identify clear sources of erosion.Landowners have stated that much of the erosion problem in the watershed may betraced to old railroad grades, unused roads and certain active roads which draininto tributaries. Location of these sites by survey and interview would identifyfuture restoration sites that would benefit many parties at once.

Continuing StudyFurther study in the Greenwood Creek watershed must consider water quality, fishhabitat, watershed conditions, and increasing knowledge of the mainstem. Someof these data are already collected and need assembly and analysis, such asturbidity data, from Elk County Water District, and GIS layers, from L-PCorporation. Other elements are in process, such asairph6to analysis by theGreenwood Creek Watershed Project. Creation and'housirig 'of a master data baseand history ofdata analysis within the Watershed Project will help defray both costand redundancy of sampling and analysis.

IIII

•IIII

•(I

••IIIIIIIII

••­LI

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

to debris jams or geologic control points. This is a useful direction for furtheranalysis of existing data and collection of data in the future..Further progressionup the stream and analysis of watershed factors will also help isolate particularsedimentation sources.

Whole watershed analysis must address the tributaries and hillslopes, sedimentsources, precipitation rates, and land management activities. Ultimately it is theinteraction of all these factors which cumulatively create the qualities ofGreenwood Creek, including its characteristics of shape, water quality, and fishhabitat.

Further information on tributaries and their contribution to the total sediment loadof Greenwood Creek remains an important consideration to sedimentation analysisand control. The upper watershed and tributary information which may begathered to best understand these relationships are particle size, pool filling, STC's, .

. analysis with.airphotos, road surveys, and/or simultaneous turbidity analysisthroughout the stream system during peak flows. Tributary watershed informationmay then be used along with the existing and future data on the mainstem ofthestream.

15 May 9636

A geomorphic evaluation of pool forming elements and structures may beconducted for the lower watershed, to see if the low number of pools found isvalid for this stream system, or unreasonably low. After assessing what the 'right'number of pools are, and if they are restricted by woody debris recruitment, habitatrestoration projects on Greenwood Creek may do well to focus on recruitment andstabilization of woody debris into the stream. channel to create more poolformation to increase habitat potential for fish. The first sites which should beevaluated are in the sample #34-45 area, which should be investigated both for thereasons that there are few pools in this reach, and this reach's potential for poolcreation.

FSW, inc.

II'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

References

FEMAT. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, andSocial Assessment. v-12 - v-25. USDA Forest Service,

Harmon, M.E., et al. 1986. "Ecology of Coarse Woody Debris in TemperateEcosystems". Advances in Ecological Research 15:261-267

15 May 9637

Greenwood Creek Watershed Project. 1995. Greenwood Creek WatershedProject Stream Survey. (Sketch maps and transects of stream survey.)GCWP, PO Box 106, Elk, Ca. 95432. app. 350 pp.

Knopp, C. 1993. Testing Indices of Cold Water Fish Habitat. Final Report forDevelopment ofTechniques for Measuring Beneficial Use Protection andInclusion into the North Coast Region's Basin Plan by Amendment of the"Guidelines for Implementing and Enforcement ofDischarge ProhibitionsRelating to Logging, Construction and Associated Activities". NorthCoast Regional Water Quality Control Board and California Department ofForestry. Aug. 15. 1993.56 pp.

Knopp, C. 1993. Procedural Guide for Measuring Sediment Deposition in Poolsand Riffles in North Coast Streams. California State Water ResourcesControl Board and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency agreement No.1-104-251-0.

Hilton, Sue and Thomas Lisle. 1993. Measuring the Fraction ofPool VolumeFilled with Fine Sediment. Res. Note PSW-RN-414. Pacific SouthwestResearch Station, U.S. Forest Service. 11 pp.

Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. "Habitat Requirements ofSalmonids inStreams." in: Influences ofForest and Rangeland Management onSalmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. W.R Meehan, ed. AmericanFisheries Society Special Publications 19:83-138.

Chamberlin, T.W., RD. Hart, and F.H. Everest. 1991. "Timber Harvesting,Silviculture and Watershed Processes." in: Influences ofForest andRangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. W.RMeehan, ed. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 181-205.

Flosi, Gary and Forrest L. Reynolds. Aug. 1991. California Salmonid StreamHabitat Restoration Manual. State of California Resources Agency; Dept.ofFish and Game

FSW, inc.

II:1IIII:1IIIIIIIIII

--

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

Leopold, L., M.G. Wolman and J.P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes inGeomorphology. W.H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco. 522 pp.

Shuett-Hames, D., A. Pleus, L. Bullchild and S. Hall. 1994. Ambient MonitoringProgram Manual. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Timber Fish &Wildlife. TFW-AM9-94-001.

Murphy, M.L. and W.R. Meehan. 1991. Introduction and Overview. InfluencesofForest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and TheirHabitats. W.R. Meehan, ed. American Fisheries Society SpecialPublication 19. Bethesda, Maryland. 19:17-46.

15 May 9638

Washington Forest Practices Board. 1994. Board Manual: StandardMethodology for Conducting Watershed Analysis. Version 2.1.,

FSW, inc.

,I11"

;1:1II:1:1'III

--,,,,LI

Field Guide for Stream Survey Methodology

* * *

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

15 May 9639

APPENDIX A

FSW, inc.

I,I

"

IIIII:1II

--••IIIIIIII

2. Valley Morphology: Describe the valley morphology using the following terms:

4. Channel pattern: The channel pattern is described in the following terms:

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

Field Guide for Stream Survey Methodology

15 May 9640

R~ped: Banks slope into the water at less than 90 degrees.Squared: Banks rise vertically out ofthe water.

Riffle: A quickly moving stretch ofwater unbroken by meanders, obstructionpools or cascades.

.Dune-rime: ;~Astraight, sandy channel with little gradientand='substantial'deposits· .of fine sediment forming an undulating stream bottom with occasional poolsand riffles.

Riffle-pool-meandering: A channel with riffles, pools and meanders that are notcaused by large organic debris (LWD) or rock formations in the channel.

Rime-pool-obstruction: A channel with rifiles, pools and meanders that arecaused by obstructions such as LWD or large boulder formations.

Cascade: A very steep channel with no pools and mostly white water.Step-pool: A very steep channel consisting of small falls between frequent pools.

Broad flood plain: An area with very low stream gradient and flat localtopography, heavy sediment deposition and aggradation forming deltas and/or abraided channel. In a broad floodplain a channel can change its course quiteeasily.

Swale: Aslight depression in the topography that confines the channel. Thechannel has a low gradient, is not deeply incised and can still change its coursewithin the swale confines.

Constricted: A valley with steep sides, a deeply incised channel and little spacefor the stream to change its course.

Straight: A single channel that flows generally in a straight line.Braided: Multiple channels that flow in and out ofeach other.Meandering: A single channel with many regularly spaced turns.

1. Describe location: Locations of samples should include obvious descriptions ofthesite that would help someone locate that spot again. (eg. broad open meadows, adjacentland owned by whom etc...)

3. Channel Morphology: This is an assessment of the channel morphology at thesample site. Ifthe sample is anomalous compared to the overall stream morphology, youcan note this on the data sheets. Choices include:

5. Bank morphology: This is an estimation ofthe percentage of the stream banksshowing the following fonns. Both banks together equal 100% and a visual grid, breakingthe banks into smaller percentage areas, is used for standardization.

FSW, inc.

I:1'IIIIII'I"'I'"

-I:'"

I,III

••••

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

Overhanging: Banks extend over the water, with enough overhang to prevent youfrom seeing your boot toe under the bank.

6. Bank condition: An estimate of the bank. condition, using percentages. These maytotal to over 100% if the categories overlap. Choices include:

II. V-wave (V" proxy): Workers sample a maximum oftwo pools in each plot forrelative volume of fine sands and sediments. Using a rod marked in centimeters, they

15 May 9641

9. Fish sighted: When workers arrive at the sample site, they quietly walk the samplereach bank looking for fish before stepping in the water and beginning other evaluations.Number of fish, size and species are noted when possible.

Water velocity slower than the mean velocity.Countervailing currents.Flat surface at low flow.

. Deeper than the mean thalweg depth. (deepest point of channel in cross-section).

10. Number of pools in this plot: Instream pools function to provide fish habitat,especially in hot weather, and to trap or hold sediment as it moves down through thestream channel. A basic question to ask when looking for pools in a channel, is "ifyouturned off the water, where would the pooled water remain?" Field crews are instructed todefine pools with the following criteria:

7. Pebble/Particle Count: This is a measurement of 150 randomly selected mobileparticles and the largest 30 particles in a single point bar or gravel bed. The objective ofthis measure is to determine what size materials the stream is capable of carrying, later tobe used in determining stream energy, calculating Riffle Armor Stability Index andevaluating cumulative effects. With eyes closed, workers use their fingertip to selectparticles, from within the flowing water to the upper limit ofthe mobile material.. The sizeof the particle is recorded as its y-axis, or middle axis dimension. The thirty largestparticles are identified by looking around the same bar and searching.

Unvegetated cobble, gravel or sandVegetatedWood or root wadsCollapsed"Bedrock/bouldersActively contributing sediment.

8. Large Organic Debris (LWD): Workers tally the number of large woody debrispieces in the bankfull channel for two size classes and categorize them as "functional" or"non-functional". The two size classes are from 20-50 em-and >50-cmindiameter. Thesize is determined :by the largest diameter section of the wood:" Functional is defined asembedded into the banks or bed or affecting the flow of water'around it. Non-functional isdefined as lying within 2 meters above the wetted channel or poised, ready to fall into thestream. If there is a debris jam ofmore than 10 pieces greater than 20 cm diameter, thejam is recorded separately on the debris jam form.

FSW, inc.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILI

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

Vr: The residual pool depth. The depth of the water without pushing the rod into the bedmaterial.

Vf: The fine sediment depth. Calculated as total pool depth minus residual pool depth, or:Vf= (Vr + Vi) - Vr

Vf+ Vr: The total pool depth. The depth ofthe water after pushing the rod into the bedmaterial until an annored layer is reached.

.,.-- ."

15 May 9642

S VfS Vr+Vf

Vwave =

Site map: Field workers sketch a detailed map of the site on graph paper. This is done byfirst hanging flags known locations, segmenting the plot, then walking the site and theadjacent flood plain.

Vwave: The weighted average offines/total depth for all points measured. .The weighting isrelative to depthand-sediment filling. In other words, the points are not first calculatedthen averaged; but first accumulated, then calculated for the whole pool. The calculationis:

To develop the map and assure that workers see the whole site, two parallel transects arerun perpendicular to the stream valley to measure floodplain width and locate alternate(overflow and abandoned) channels. One transect is at 10 m and one is at 20 m of the 0­30 m site. The bearing of the transects is recorded, and a bearing tree, which lies on thetransect, is labeled with an aluminum tag. The transect bearing tree is designated at Omfor each cross-section with positive numbers on the right and negative numbers to the left,facing upstream. Each tag is marked with the sample number and transect letter, 'a' at10m, and 'hI, further upstream at 20m. Bearing trees are chosen for their visibility andproximity to the streambed so the same transects can be run in the future. From thesetransects, the mid-points of alternate channels and the floodplain width are measured and

Workers record the downstream location ofeach pool, the maximum length and width ofthe pool and the maximum depth ofthe riffle crest (the lip over which the bathtub ofthepool flows). After subtracting the riffle crest depth from each measurement, and excludingpoints which had sediment at a level higher than the riffle crest depth, the following valuesare determined to the nearest centimeter for each point. (Hilton and Lisle, 1993)

probe the pool in cross section, working from left to right, moving from downstream toupstream, conducting six transects ofeight points each. The V points are not fixed toparticular locations, though they should be spaced evenly through the length and width ofthe pool. Each point has two measurements, 1) the depth of the water without pushing therod into the bed material and 2) the depth ofthe water after pushing the rod into the bedmaterial until a resistant layer is reached~ The rod should be jostled a few times to breakthrough the sediment layers but should not be strenuously forced through heavy gravels orcobbles..

FSW, inc.

IIIIIIIIIIII,,,,•,,

STC's I Tributaries I Debris Jams

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

Site sketch maps are later translated into CorelDraw, to standardize features and scale.Map features include:

The following features are not surveyed within plots, but along the entire distance ofthestream. They have separate fonns, apart from plot data.

15 May 9643

*North arrow;*Overall channel shape, including length and width ofsample reach and thalweg;*Position of transects A and B, across active channel and alternate channels;*Dominant obstructions in or along channel (eg. boulders, LWD, bedrock

projections);*Associated vegetation in and out of channel;*Pools should be drawn and numbered in correlation with data sheets; and*Positions ofgravel bars, sandy beaches and large overhanging banks.

recorded. The edge of the floodplain is detemtined by the break in slope to upland forest,usually at the change in vegetation type.

Sediment Transport Corridors (STC's): An STC is a visible corridor where sedimententers the stream channel. Workers look for STC's along the entire length of the surveysection, not just within samples. STC data include its meter location, the direction fromwhich it drains, and an evaluation of its effect on the stream-"virtually unnoticeable","sediment de~osition", or "significant depositionl The STC should be walked .uphill to its .sources, and"Its cause and source area recorded. The surf)l.ce area of the STC ISdetermined by measuring its width and length to the nearest 1/2 meter. The STC issketched to show the connection between the stream, the STC, its causes and source area.

Tributaries: Each tributary is recorded by its location on the stream length and notingwhich bank it drains from. Effects on stream are also noted including any visible changesin water quality or sediment loading in the main channel. Values of "virtuallyunnoticeable", "sediment deposition", and "significant deposition" are assigned.

Debris jams: All debris jams that contain 10 or more pieces of wood greater than 20cmdiameter are recorded on the Debris Jam fonn, along with the meter location of the jam.Where the jam is found relative to the stream channel is noted by assigning a Zoneclassification to the jam: Zone 1=low flow channel, Zone 2 =bankfull channel and Zone3 =flood channel.

FSW, inc.

IIIIIIII.1:1IIII

--,•LIII

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey

I.1·:1,IIII11:11:J

;1

IIIIIIII

• FSW, inc.

APPENDIXB

* * *Data Tables

44 15 May 96

Greenwood Creek Watershed Project Stream Survey 1995SAMPLE LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS

.. :

Sample number Location in meters Locaticm description. .

1 180 to 210 Log jam" rocky point bar, below Russell house2 390 to 420 Cliff on right, cobbling island, start of flats3 600 to 630 Two dry alternate channels, massive log jam4 810 to 840 RXR tressle pilings at top of flats5 1020 to 1050 Down stream from L.P crossing6 1230 to 1260 Just upstream" from Commons flat adjacent to steel bridge7 1440 to 1470 Above Greenwood Commons8 1650 to 1680 Top of plot has large washout9 1860 to 1890 Below "Pidgeon Holeil by giant old redwood

10 2070 to 2100 Large rbck, cobble riffle, cascade. 2nd growth redwoodlfir11 2280 to 2310 Up from cascade into widening floodplain· alder12 2490 to 2520 Ecualyp,tis grove hole13 2700 to 2730 Old RRTrestie Pool14 2910 to 2940 Braided'channel, large boulder, log jam at head of site15 3120 to 3150 Log Bridge Hole16 3330 to 3360 Above log bridge, large flat bouldering, granite substrate17 3540 to 3570 Large, IQng shallow pool below cascade18 3750 to 3780 Straight riffle pool,steep banks on either side19 3960 to 3990 Just above gravelly spawning beds20 4170 to 4200 Long slaw pool channels in the sun21 4380 to 4410 Straight p.ooHiffiewith large old alder and 2nd growth fir and redwood22 4590 to 4620 Large b'Olders below point bar23 4800 to 4830 On~ larQ~";shallow"pool, alder on bank24 5010 to 5040 Above soda spring, large rock split in middle25 5220 to 5250 Just abo.ve big tributary on right, Alder, Redwood, Fir goove26 5430 to 5460 FloOdplain broadens, 2nd growth alder cover27 5640 to 5670 Just up from Alder jam28 5850 to 5880 Creek goes up to right, large redwood stump at left side of bank

". II

Table 1.!,

II:1

.......... - - .. , ...... - - - - - - - ..Greenwood Creek Watershed Project Stream Survey 1995 Cont..SAMPLE LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS

,';!'.

~

Sample number Location in meters Location description- - 29 6060 to 6090 Above large bolders,long bend, large cobble bar

30 6270 to 6300 Long wide pool31 6480 to 6510 Sheer rock wall Into pool on s. side of creek. Large boulders32 6690 TO 6720 Broad co.bble creek bed below redwood grove

, 33 6900 to 6930 Long shall()w pool, next to old road34 7110t07140 Braided ,channel, next to Mat Evan's land35 7110 to 7140 Braided <;:hannel; large cobble island. .36 7320 to 7350 Large pool below log jam, rocks and alder37 7530 to 7560 Fir trees down across and above stream channel38 7740 to 7770 Just bel9w lake tributary39 7950 to 7980 Giant Alders, .Iarge log on left40 8160 to 8190 Middle of 180 degree tum41 8370 to 8400 Just above road crossing cr. overhanging root wads42 8580 to 8610 Log jam"lnbetween A & B transects43 8790 to 8820 Just abo.ve large log jam44 9000 to 9030 Long pools, large pool forming. Fir log on right45 9210 to 9240 Large 5" ,fir log on left, long shallow pool46 9420 to 9450 Really long shallow pool. Alder shade47 9630 to 9660 Creekbends Into pool with two large boulders, one huge one48 9840 to 9870 Log aCross creek and Into boulders49 10050 to 10080 Step bank On left of pool50 10260 to 10290 Long pOQl, two large pool forming boulders51 10470 to 10500 Undercut bank, small log jam, cobble bar52 10680 to 10710 Very large redwood root wad, nice pool

53 10890 to 10920 Railroad :trestle54 11100 to 11130 Just above RR trestle bridge, long long pool55 11310 to 11340 Cobble field in stream bed of large stones56 11520 to 11550 Riparian. many alders and sedge grass In river

57 11730 to 11760 Rlparianlw Iwillows and firs. Few redwoods, very rocky, little sand

58 11940 to 11970 Cobble .gravel, bar, overhanging rock on right

59 12150 to 12180 Cobble 'creek bed. Redwoods to bank, make overhanging screen',; I I

Table 1. ", .,~,

",,,.

Greenwood Creek Watershed Project Stream Survey 1995 Cont..SAMPLE LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS

;.':, ..

Sample.number Location in meters Locatiqn description60 12360 to 12390 Alders, :r~dwoods, fir and oaks into creekbed61 12570 to 12600 Center valley floor, low ridges, big pools62 12780 to 12810 Bam Gulth meets Greenwood63 12990 to 13020 Long pool above Bam Gultch trib., where a logging road crosses.64 13200 to 13230 Large trib. on right facIng up stream, Ig. root wad overhang + water fall65 13410 to 13440 Below large redwood log that bridges the creek66 13620 to 13650 Two nice pools at old hunting and fishing cabin67 13830 to 13860 Nice bouldery pool above first cabins68 14040 to 14070 Very constricted, rock wall on right, long pool with boulders69 14250 to 14280 Granite .ledge on right facing up70 14460 to 14490 Long shallow pool with skid trail on left facing above large trib.71 14670 to 14700 Large rocks and boulders72 14880 to 14910 Lots of fallen trees across creekbed73 15090 to 15120 Two redwood logs going across channel, less than two meters above channel74 15300 to 15330 Huge logjam on left facing up stream75 15510 to 15540 Sunny spot with small alders, step pools76 15720 to 15750 Two nice'deep pools, pool #1 has a large boulder in middle77 15930 to 15960 Above old dam, wide cobbly creekbed78 16140 to 16170 Lower part of nice long pool, pretty wide pool79 16350 to 16380 Nice pool with Ig redwood root wad. Site below large STC.

, 80 16560 to 16590 Long narrow; shallow 0001 below large fir log across stream

Table 1.

.........;_ ..Greenwood Creek Watershed Project Stream Survey 1995CHANNEL AND BANK MORPHOLOGY

:.'!

Sample Valley Channel Channel Bank Morphology- % Bank Condition - %Morphology Morphology Pattern Ramp· Square Overhung Unvegetated Vegetated Root wads Eroding/actively

contributing soil1 broad floodplain riffle-pool-obstruction meandering 75 25 a 60 15 20 102 broad floodplain riffle straight 85 15 a 10 90 54 broad floodplain riffle-pool-meandering meandering 75 25 a 40 50 10 a5 broad floodplain riffle-pool braided 95 5 0 10 90 56 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 73 13 13 75 30 5 307 constricted pool-obstruction straight 45 50 5 45 45 5 59 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction braided a 90 10 25 75 a a

10 constricted riffle-pool-meandering meandering 8 73 18 45 50 5 a11 step-pool meandering 83 13 4 50 50 5 6012 constricted step-pool straight 20 65 15 90 10 4 a13 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 60 35 5 90 10 5 014 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction braided 30 65 5 60 30 10 1015 constricted step-pool straight 15 80 5 90 10 0 016 constricted riffle-pool-meandering meandering 80 10 10 70 20 10 3017 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 80 15 5 70 30 0 1018 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 60 30 10 40 20 10 3020 constricted riffle-pool-meandering braided 70 25 5 50 60 0 1022 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 20 60 20 15 50 15 2523 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 7P 20 10 10 80 10 1024 constricted riffle-pool-meandering braided 4? 45 10 50 40 15 525 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight ~5 5 0 50 50 1526 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 6~ 30 .10 30 75 0 527 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 7$ 25 0 25 50 20 1528 constricted riffle-pool meandering straight 50 20 30 60 30 20 3029 constricted cascade straight 65 25 10 70 25 5 530 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight S9 50 a 70 30 0 531 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight ·10 60 30 70 20 10 2032 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 3S 15 50 25 75 20 5

.. ,'. ~.

Table 2.

· I

Greenwood Creek Watershed Project Stream SurVey 1995CHANNEL AND BANK MORPHOLOGY

Sample Valley Channel Channel Bank Morphology - % Bank Condition - %Morphology Morphology Pattern Ramp, Square Overhung Unvegetated Vegetated Root wads Eroding/actively

33 constricted step-pool' straight 50 25 25 25 60 10 2S34 broad floodplain riffle-pool-obstruction straight 70 15 15 50 40 5 2035 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 50 30 20 50 40 10 1036 constricted riffle-pool-meandering braided 20 5 75 50 10 40 2037 constricted riffle-pool-meandering braided 70 10 20 60 30 10 1038 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight E?O 25 15 50 40 10 2039 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 55 20 25 50 50 2040 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 28 48 23 50 45 15 2041 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 4,0 30 30 35 35 30 5042 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 3,0 45 25 50 50 25 2543 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 25 60 15 50 35 15 5044 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 60 25 15 50 35 15 2045 constricted step-pool straight 50 30 20 35 65 25 3046 constricted riffle-pool-obstructed straight 55 25 20 35 40 35 2547 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction braided ,45 30 25 50 25 30 3548 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 45 35 20 40 20 20 2049 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 20 50 30 50 35 10 1050 constricted riffle-pool-meandering meandering 30 30 40 40 40 15 3051 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight '3.E) 35 45 40 40 25 2552 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 45 30 25 40 45 40 2053 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 50 30 20 50 20 10 3054 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction . straight 45 45 10 45 30 10 1555 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction meandering 30 40 30 50 20 30 2056 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 40 50 10 40 50 25 3057 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction meandering 30 40 30 50 40 30 4058 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction braided 45 30 25 50 30 30 2559 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction meandering 3~ 20 41 50 30 20 3560 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight :50 30 20 40 40 25 2061 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 2,0 30 50 30 40 40 40

Table 2.

-_••_.- ••••• --~~~~~Greenwood Creek Watershed Project Stream SurVey 1995CHANNEL AND BANK MORPHOLOGY

.l.r

",

;'"

"

Sample \(alley Channel Channel Bank Morphology Bank ConditionMorphology Morphology Pattern Rampe', Square Overhangi Unvegetated Vegetated Root wads Eroding/actively

", ,

'. ;;;

62 constricted step-pool straight 1'3 13 73 40 5 40 4063 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 35 30 35 40 40 20 3064 constricted step-pool straight 55 25 20 40 40 25 2065 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 35 40 25 40 30 20 2066 constricted step-pool braided 35 40 25 45 35 20 2067 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 25 30 45 50 35 30 4068 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 25 40 35 50 25 5 2569 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 55 30 15 50 35 15 2070 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 35 30 35 40 40 15 3571 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 80 20 0 70 20 20 2072 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 10 60 30 30 30 10 3073 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction meandering 35 35 30 40 30 25 3574 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 35 35 30 35 45 40 2575 constricted step-pool straight 35 35 30 40 45 30 3076 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight 40 30 30 45 40 25 4577 constricted step-pool straight 17 80 3 20 60 5 1578 constricted riffle-pool-obstruction straight ~5 40 15 25 55 20 1579 constricted riffle-pool-meandering braided 15 45 40 45 60 25 2580 constricted riffle-pool-obstructed straight 50 25 25 35 55 15 15

,.-.

TOTAL PERCENT (average) ~ 34 21 46 40 17 20

,

"

"

'J'

Table 2.

\

Greenwood Creek Watershed Project Stream SurVey 1995WOODY DEBRIS AND LOG JAMS

Sample LOD 20-50 LOD >50 Total Functional LOD 20-50 LOD>50 Jam Location No. rootwads No. logs No. logsnumber .Functional Functional LOD Non-functional Non-functional 20-50 em >50 em

1 2 0 2 ·0 0 180 1 14 72 0 0 0 1 0 190 1 16 193 0 0 0 0 0 280 1 14 154 4 0 4 0 0 540 1 19 55 0 0 0 0 0 555 1 20 86 1 0 1 0 0 620 0 50 187 0 1 1 2 0 805 3 21 38 0 0 0 0 0 863 0 19 109 1 0 1 0 2 2175 0 0 6

10 0 0 0 0 0 2338 0 32 611 0 0 0 0 2 2910 2 4 512 0 0 0 '0 0 5630 4 8 413 0 1 1 .,0 0 6685 0 2 314 0 0 0 .0 0 2236 0 0 315 0 0 0 0 0 2360 0 13 516 0 2 2 7 2 2401 0 11 317 0 0 0 '0 0 2860 0 0 118 1 2 3 0 0 3104 0 5 5

19 0 0 0 0 0 3871 0 6 520 0 1 1 Q' 1 7345 0 20 321 0 0 0 Q' 0 7596 0 5 622 10 3 13 '~ , 0 3652 1 14 323 0 0 0 p 0 5810 0 9 1124 6 3 9 • 0 863 0 19 1025 0 1 1 ~ 4 6729 0 2 0

26 0 0 0 0 0 7380 0 7 6

27 2 1 3 11 2 7870 0 10 3

28 2 1 3 ,4 0 8569 0 19 0

29 0 0 0 ,.3 ' 0 8595 0 20 3

30 0 1 1 1 0 8765 0 60 30

31 0 1 1 ,2 0 10495 0 5 5

Table 3. .~

......... _; ..... 111 .......... -

Greenwood Creek Watershed Project Stream SurVey 1995WOODY DEBRIS AND LOG JAMS

Sample LOD 20-50 LOD >50 Total Functional LOD 20-50 LOD >50 Jam Location No. rootwads No. logs No. logsnumber .Functional Functional LOD Non-functional Non-functional 20-50 cm >50 cm

, ,

32 4 0 4 ·2 ,2 10514 1 7 433 2 0 2 2 0 11158 3 4 334 0 ,": 12365 0 9 235 a 0 0 ~ 1 12575 2 9 236 5 5 10 10 a 12595 3 12 237 4 2 6 4 a 12615 4 20 838 a 0 0 0 a 13514 a 6 639 a 1 1 4 a 14829 a 5 540 a a 0 Q 0 16422 1 6 941 0 ' ,

.'42 2 1 3 20 243 2 1 3 1 a44 1 1 2 2 a45 3 4 7 1 146 a a 0 3 347 3 0 3 3 148 8 1 9 a a49 1 a 1 3 a50 1 0 1 ~ 151 5 2 7 4 352 1 3 4 3 053 1 0 1 3 154 2 a 2 a a55 0 2 2 1 156 a 6 6 17 157 4 2 6 10 , 058 3 0 3 ,3 059 0 1 1 1 060 1 1 2 8 1

Table 3.

Greenwood Creek Watershed Project Stream Survey 1995WOODYDEB~SANDLOGJAMS

. ~

Sample Lao 20-50 LOD >50 Total Functional LaO 20-50· ' LOD >50number .Functional Functional LaO Non-functioned Non-functional

,i

61 7 9 16 1S 562 1 0 1 0 063 0 0 0 3 064 2 0 2 0 065 066 0 0 0 -4 067 2 1 3 1 168 0 0 0 1 069 2 0 2 0 070 0 0 0 4 271 0 0 0 0 172 4 1 5 '0 073 11 3 14 0 074 12 5 17 10 375 0 0 0 1 076 2 0 2 6 177 2 2 4 ·0 278 3 2 5 • 1 079 2 3 5 ;2 0

80 0 0 0 2 1;

Table 3. ";1 ..

"'\ .

~ ;

. l·!;\i'i

I

•,,It,•,,,,.,,,,,,I,,

Table 4.

Greenwood Creek I I IFish Sighted - Numbers, Size and Species

Sample Fish Number Size Speciesnumber Siqhted min. max. min. in. max. in. trout steelhead ISickleback bullhead suckerfish

11ves 10 12 2 6 bullhead suckerfish21ves 3 3 2 2 steelhead31ves 8 8 1.5 5 steehlead suckerfish41ves 5 5 1.5 2 steelhead ~ckleback

51ves 9 9 2 4 trout61ves 18 18 1.5 2.5 steelhead7!yes 20 20 1.5 6 steelhead bullhead8 ves 15 15 2 5 steehleadgives 10 10 1.25 5 steelhead

10 no11 yes 20 20 1.5 5 steelhead12 ves 20 20 1.5 6 steelhead13Ives 8 10 3 514 Ives 2 2 1.5 515 Ives 25 30 1.5 6 steelhead16 Ives 8 10 1:5 5 steelhead17 Iyes 18 20 1.5 5 steelhead18 Ives 10 10 1.5 6 steelhead19Ives 10 10 1.5 5 .

20 Ives ·20 ·20 1.5 ........:- ···5 -._ .. steelhead21 Ives 30 30 1 3 steelhead22 Ives 15 15 1.5 7 steelhead23 Ives 35 35 1.5 3 steelhead24 Ives 15 15 1.5 4 steelhead25 Ives 4 4 1.5 2 steelhead26 Ives 12 12 1.5 4 steelhead27 ves 20 20 1.5 4 steelhead28 ves 10 10 1.5 6 steelhead29 ves 15 15 1.5 6 steelhead30 Ives 30 30 1.5 4 steelhead31 Ives 5 10 1.5 4 steelhead32 Ives 10 10 1.5 4 steelhead33 Ives 9 10 1.5 4 steelhead34 no steelhead35 'yeS 15 15 1.5 6 steelhead36 Ives 2 2 1.5 2 steelhead37 Ives 15 15 1.5 638 Ives 7 10 1.5 6 steelhead39 Ives 4 4 1.5 .2 steelhead40 Ives 1 1 1.5 1.5 steelhead41 no

I-.tLI11

•IJ

••.<•,.­.'•,,,:LI

Table 4.

I I I IFish Sighted - Numbers, Size and Species Cant...

Sample Fish Number Size Speciesnumber SiQhted min. max. min. in. max. in. trout steelhead I§ckleback bullhead suckerfish

42 ives 4 4 1.5 4 steelhead43 ves 10 12 1.5 4 steelhead44 Ives 30 30 1.5 6 steelhead45 [ves 15 15 1.5 4 steelhead46 [ves 1 6 1.5 547 [ves 15 15 1.5 6 steelhead48 Ives 9 9 1.5 3 steelhead49 Iyes 20 20 1.5 5 steelhead50 Ives 20 20 1.5 6 steelhead51 'ves 6 6 1.5 7 steelhead

52Iyes 15 15 1.5 7 steelhead53 Ives 25 25 1.5 5 steelhead54 Iyes 80 90 1.5 7 steelhead55 Ives 5 5 1 2 steelhead56 Ives 20 20 2 5 steelhead57 Ives 25 25 2 4 steelhead58 Ives 5 5 2 4 steelhead59 Ives 22 22 1.5 4 steelhead60 Iyes 1 1 3 3 steelhead61 Iyes 2 5 1.5 6 steelhead62 Iyes 11 ' 11 1.5 4.5 '. steelhead63 Ives 30 30 1.5 6 steelhead64 Iyes 10 10 1 4 steelhead65 no66 Iyes 28 28 2 7 steelhead67 yes 15 15 2 7 steelhead68 yes 10 10 2 6 steelhead69 yes 30 30 1.5 5 steelhead70 ves 15 15 1.5 3 steelhead71 yes 2 2 1.5 1.5 steelhead72 [yes 6 6 2 .2 steelhead73 [yes 10 10 2 3 steehead74 [ves 52 52 2 5 steelhead75 Ives 5 5 2 4 steelhead76 Iyes 30 30 2 5 steelhead77 Ives 35 35 2 5 steelhead78 [ves 20 20 2 4 steelhead79 Iyes 26 26 2 6 steelhead80 Ives 11 11 2 3 steelhead

Average 15.6 16.1 1.7 4.6'per Sample

II

8M .......... _. LbJ : __ .

"

Sample Pool Pool Sum of V_wave Sample Pool Pool Sum of V_wave Sample Pool Pool Sum of V_waveNo. No. location Pool No. No. location Pool No. No. location Pool

(m) Depth (m) Depth (m) Depth. (em) (em) (em)

1 1 182 1179 7.0% 31 1 6485 886 11.9 % 60 1 12365 273 23.8%3 1 625 705 8.9% 32 1 6690 990 29.2% 61 1 12601 960 11.5 %4 1 770 1612 25.4% 33 1 6910 323 29.1 % 62 1 12820 994 12.7 %5 1 1020 256 30.1 % 36 1 7320 1226 40.0 % 63 1 13000 1492 13.2 %6 1 1250 361 27.1 % 37 1 7530 805 30.4 % 66 1 13630 2558 14.1 %7 1 1440 562 21.9 % 38 1 7740 1316 26.6% 66 2 13650 2445 10.6 %8 1 1650 691 21.3 % 40 1 8160 2028 43.5% 67 1 13845 989 21.0 %

--~ -- -24.6% 8800 14099 1 1880 134 43 1 19.4 % 68 1 14055 1353 22.7%

11 1 2285 272 29.0% 43 2 8605 481 15.6% 69 1 14250 550 30.2%12 1 2480 2670 26.8% 44 1 9005 1694 32.9% 69 2 14285 1165 13.2 %13 1 2705 51 43.1 % 44 2 9010 884 26.5 % 70 1 14490 791 20.6%

-' 13 2 2720 464 26.9% 46 1 9425 602 25.7% 72 1 14870 442 22.2%14 1 2910 171 17.5% 47 1 9630 1424 9.1 % 73 1 15099 547 9.5%14 2 2920 1462 19.6 % 48 1 9845 445 39.8% 74 1 15300 944 17.8%

f--.

3120 2951 10.9 % 48 2 9855 290 34.8 % 74 2 15325 248615 1 6.1 %15 1 3145 301 15.3 % 49 1 10060 2297 10.2 % 75 1 15510 149 17.4 %.16 1 3330 741 20.5% 50 1 10270 1490 26.0% 75 2 15535 285 34.4 %

f---- 17 1 3340 860 36.7 % 51 1 10470 744 39.4 % 75 3 15538 272 18.8 %-- 3750 1169 16.8 % 52 1 1Q700 1099 19.1 % 76 1 15725 1990 12.9%18 118 2 3790 175 26.3% 53 1 10918 740 28.4 % 76 2 15751 2065 5.9%19 1 3960 667 23.2% 54 1 11120 1133 29.6% 77 1 15930 280 23.6%20 1 4170 1142 25.6% 55 1 11315 244 29.1 % 77 2 15943 235 74.9%21 1 4390 486 42.6% 55 2 11325 300 21.3% 77 3 15963 1285 18.9%23 1 4800 609 62.1 % 56 1 11540 346 20.2% 78 1 16170 921 31.6 %24 1 5030 569 24.4 % 56 2 11545 443 33.0% 79 1 16385 1489 39.4 %26 1 5450 299 44.1 % 57 1 11740 129 35.7% 80 1 16560 591 21.2 %28 1 5860 823 44.0% 57 2 11750 648 50.2%29 1 6060 792 23.7 % 58 1 11947 60 50.0%30 1 6290 1652 15.0 % 58 2 11965 267 33.0%

59 1 12165 432 16.4 %

Table 5.-..~ J •

"l

_ I'

.. - - - - ... ... IIIi .. .. .. .. ,.. - - - - - -worked v-wave example

Sample # Pool# Poollocatior cum_val4 1 770 1612 depth

V_wave 409 fines25.37%

bottom of fines 100 87 68 61 55 57 60 49 70 85 86 88 78 77 66 60 84 82top of fines A 24 40 54 54 55 55 60 46 ·65 80 86 85 72 61 50 38 84 82riffle crest 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29top of fines B 29 40 54 54 55 55 60 46 65 80 86 85 72 61 50 38 84 82b-t=depth of fines 71 41 14 7 0 2 0 3 5 5 0 3 6 16 16 22 0 0pool depth 71 58 39 32 26 28 31 20 41 56 57 59 49 48 37 31 55 53fine depth 71 41 14 1 0 2 0 3 5 5 0 3 6 16 16 22 0 0

bottom of fines 84 72 72 66 68 88 65 59 50 29 32 38 36 24 74 61 71 61top of fines A 75 68 70 53 52 35 65 57 46 29 32 35 30 21 53 59 68 59riffle crest 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29top of fines B 75 68 70 53 52 35 65 57 46 29 32 35 30 29 53 59 68 59b-t=depth of fines 9 4 2 13 16 53 0 2 4 0 0 3 6 a 21 2 3 2pool depth 55 43 43 37 39 59 36 30 21 a 3 9 7 0 45 32 42 32fine depth 9 4 2 13 16 53 a 2 4 0 a 3 6 0 21 2 3 2

bottom of fines 54 44 27 26 70 68 72 66 62 61 52 23top of fines A 47 41 24 20 63 65 72 66 61 46 36 23riffle crest 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29top of fines B 47 41 29 29 63 65 72 66 61 46 36 29b-t=depth of fines 7 3 0 0 7 3 0 0 1 15 16 0pool depth 25 15 0 a 41 39 43 37 33 32 23 0fine depth 7 3 0 0 7 3 0 0 1 15 16 a

Table 6.

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey 1995

Sample 4 Location 770 - 820 Longest length 50 m Widest width 10mFish? Yes Number sighted 5 Size 1.5" - 2" Steelhead I Sickleback

-------------........... ------ -.---.............................. ..........--:: ---" - -------

Transect 1

Site 4-poo1 1

-- bottom of riffles

-- bottom of riffles

-- bottom of riffles

Transect 2

Transect 3

-- top of fines

-- top offines

-- top of fines

..........

.'................

~- ./"........

~-~/'

---V

-------

.../"

------------------ ...----:::::- ~

~

-20

-40

-so

-80

-- Bottom of fines

o

-- bottom of fines

o-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

-70

-80

-90-100

-- Bottom of fines

a-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

-70

-80

-90

-100

Table 6. .

,,"f•,,:,;,.,,,.,,,~

•,:"I

Greenwood Creek Stream Survey 1995

Sample 4 Location 770 -820 Longest length 50 m Widest width 10mFish? Yes Number sighted 5 Size 1.5" - 2" Steelhead I Sickfeback

. ,

~

-----~ ----- -~~~ ~ ---- - .........--~

Transect 1

Site 4-pool 1

-- bottom of riffles

-- bottom of riffles

-- bottom of riffles

Transect 2

Transect 3

-- top of fines

-- top of fines

-- top of fines

-,'.

" ................

........................,/'

........~.~--,------

/./

V~

.,/'

~..,-/

~-~ ~- ...............

-

-60

-- Bottom of flnes

-100

-80

o

-40

-20

-- bottom of fines

-- Bottom of tines

o-10

"20

-30

-40

·50

-60

-70

-80·90

-100

o-10

-20. -30

-40

-50

-60

-70

-80

-90

Table 6•.

JII

"I'I

"I:1

•", '

I'IIIIII·I

,•,,•,,,,,,,,,",,,,

\

Summary - SedimentTransport Corridors

Greenwood Creek

STC location STC Width STC Length STCsq. M STC Source #1

510 9.45 9.45 89.3 seep1198 14 22 308 road1320 10 36 360 bank1660 75 286 21450 culvert1890 15 20 300 road2155 50 25.4 1270 road2300 50 60 3000 bank2410 96 32 3072 seep2654 74 70 5180 seep2850 35 30 1050 road3350 61 road3673 16 28 448 trib3780 42 5 210 road3990 10.9 10 109.0 bank4590 27 16.5 446 unknown5330 21.5 20.2 434.3 road5836 10.2 85 867 road6195 9 5.8 52 bank6490 ·20.5 50 1025 road7.135 8.5 unknown7632 .. · , . .. . 39.5 22 c. 869., -". unknown8839 7.6 10 76 unknown9840 28 unknown

10951 15 11.7 175.5 bank11400 29.5 17 502 bank11650 100 30 3000 bank11550 27 road11735 61 40 2440 bank11710 road11800 68.5 30 2055 road12441 29 15 435 road15140 18 15.6 280.8 bank15603 10 14 140 logging15445 14 32 448 bank15515 16 17.4 278.4 culvert15720 20 10 200 road15768 82 40 3280 logging16244 23.5 15.5 364.3 road16021 30.6 14.8 452.9 road16422 83 road

Table 7.

m plot no. pattern bank stability bank veg jams LWD pools fish V-wave v-pools STC0 1 bare ,. large

210 2 large low few 5420 3 braided '. large low 5630 4 small few 5840 5 braided low 5 high1050 6 unstable bare low 51260

-7 low 5

1470 8 braided low sig.1680 9 low sig.1890 10 low few 5 sig.2100 11 unstable small low sig.2310 12 bare low 'high sig.2520 13 bare low 5 sig.2730 14 braided bare small low 52940 15 bare low3150 16 unstable bare 5

3360 17 braided unstable bare.,

low high3570 18 unstable3780 19 low3990 20 braided unstable bare low4200 21 low high4410 224620 23 low high4830 24 braided5040 25 bare low few 5

5250 26 low high5460 27 few5670 28 unstable bare high5880 29 bare low6090 30 bare low6300 31 unstable bare low 5

6510 32 extreme6720 33 unstable 5

6930 34 braided unstable bare low few 5

7140 35 braided bare : low few7350 36 braided bare 5 high

Table 8. - Summary of Areas of Concern - Greenwood Creek

m plot no. pattern bank stability bank veg jams LWD pools fish V-wave v-pools STC7560 37 braided bare high7770 38 unstable bare low s7980 39 bare low few s8190 40 bare low s high extreme8400 41 unstable low few s8610 42 bare large few s8820 43 unstable bare9030 44 bare high9240 45 few9450 46 low s9660 47 braided bare9870 48 s high

10080 49 low10290 50 unstable low10500 51 s high10710 5210920 53 unstable bare low11130 5411340 55 bare s sig.11550 56 high sig.11760 57 unstable bare high outlier sig.11970 58 braided bare s high12180 59 unstable bare low high12390 60 small s12600 61 large s12810 62 low

13020 63 unstable low13230 6413440 65 low few s

13650 66 braided low

13860 67 unstable bare "

14070 68 unstable bare low

14280 69 bare high

14490 70 unstable low

14700 71 bare " small low few

14910 72 unstable

Table 8.• Summary of Areas of Concern - Greenwood Creek

m plot no. pattern bank stability bank veg jams LWD pools fish V-wave v-pools STC15120 73 unstable low15330 74 sig.15540 75 low s high sig.15750 76 unstable sig.15960 . 77 unstable very high outlier16170 7816380 79 braided high16590 80 low high

braided from low indicates bare is >- small is <40 low= less few is scarce is high is extremes . sig. isEITHER actively eroding 50% pieces than 2 <1.0 pools min <10 >.30 and >1000

pattern or is >= 10% more unvegetated pieceS/30 Iplot outliers m2l210gen. than stabilized m m

description by wood orrootwads

Table 8. - Summary of Areas of Concern - Greenwood Creek